has it omits to make any claim of it so long till all conclude he has given it up which I conceive is the Right of Prescription A Man 's Right must affect all concerned to do him Right if he stands upon it but if he never shews he stands upon it the Presumption of Mankind comes to conclude at last that he is willing to let it fall or give it up Even by our own Law Men may lose Things by neglecting to claim them in some reasonable Time which the Law construes a Relinquishment of them And this giving it up by seeming to do so visibly in never claiming it gives that sort of human Right among Men called Prescription Not that Wrong grows Right by continuance as the Author objects but what makes it a Right is the other's Consent or Relinquishment notified sufficiently as Men presume by his never making claim thereof And if he that has the Right to a Crown will Relinquish it the Submission of the People is enough to give the Possessor a Right to it And though this Prescription is not always allowed against the rightful King by the Laws of particular Nations as the Duke of York pleaded it was not to bar his Title by our own Laws when he claimed his Right against Henry the Sixth Yet where it is left to that and is not by any National Provisions otherwise excepted it is thought to do so in common human Estimate and is made to give an human Right or however it is a good Strengthner of the former when the Consent and Submissions were express before Such as these are the ways of any Persons having or getting a Right to a Throne either a legal Right when the Crown is given him by the particular Laws of the Nation or a more general sort of Right by the Consent and Submission of those who are subject to him and own no other to have a Right over them which is still the more confirmed the oftener this Consent is repeated and the longer it is continued till Time has made it a Prescription as the Power of the Emperors was over the Jews in the Days of Christ and his Apostles And in absence of Divine Nomination the human Rights thereto are to put all Persons into any Authority that they may be the Father or Higher Power which the Commandments require us to be subject to And this may shew sufficiently how by this Plea of a mere King de Facto without Right the Difficulties against the Allegiance in Debate from the Fifth Commandment will still continue as well as those from the other Commandments If an ejected King be allowed to have the Right all the Laws of Obedience for ought I see are like to go with the Right So by this Supposition such transferring of Allegiance would be a most open Undutifulness against the Call of that Precept CHAP. IV. Obedience to rightful Authority not tied to actual Administration of Government HAving thus cleared the first Point That Authority is to go by Human Right I now procede to the second viz. to show That Obedience is due to Authority and not merely to the actual Exercise thereof or to Administration of Government The Duty of Subjects he thinks is only to submit to a Prince when he actually Administers If he doth not actually administer Obedience in his Notion is not his Right nor is paying that Obedience to him who doth actually Govern giving away his Right Obedience and Submission being due to him only whilst he is in Possession of the Throne And this is another main Point which he still supposes and builds on But as he who has the Right may appear from what is already said to have the Authority I shall now show That he who has the Authority must have the Duty and Allegiance which the Commandments call for to the Authority and that whether he be in Place to exercise it or no. Indeed when he cannot exercise his Authority Subjects cannot obey or disobey an ejected Prince in that Exercise As for Instance they cannot obey him in his due Proclamations or legal Commands when he can issue out none nor in Courts and Officers when they do not proceed in his Name or act by any Commission from him unless according to the Opinion of some for the Maintenance and Course of Justice he may be thought and shown to derive some Authority to them which I leave others to determine But the main of Obedience is keeping under Obedience or owning the Authority of his Person and our own Subjection and Obligation to him And there is no Breach of Obedience like to that of casting off all Obedience To disobey him in any particular Act of exercising his Authority is only ill as it is an Infringement and Violation of the Authority of his Person and to throw off all Obedience is an utter Abolition and absolute Denial thereof The former may be the Offence of a Subject but the later of one that owes no Subjection When a Man only disobeys him in exercising his Authority though he disobeys him in one thing he may be ready to obey him in every other thing But when he throws off his Authority and Obedience it self from that time he is for obeying him in nothing at all Though therefore as he says p. 26. there is no Duty Subjects owe to Princes as Subjects but to obey them yet is there Obedience to those that cannot actually govern and room enough for Subjects to disobey them Not to disobey them in actual Government but in what is worse than that To act any thing hurtful or prejudicial to their Persons Interests or Authorities is highly to disobey if it be any part of due Obedience affectionately to serve and support them And to throw off all Obedience and turn Subject to another Person is the hight of Disobedience such disclaiming of all Allegiance and Subjection being that which makes open Rebellion to be so much a more heinous Disobedience than breaking of a single Law or Proclamation Now this Obedience or keeping under Obedience and being ready to pay it actually as we can is due to the Authority and inseparably follows it and so to him that has the Authority whether he be in Possession or Place to exercise it or no. This I think may sufficiently appear from these following Considerations 1. From the Nature of Authority which as I formerly observed is to lay Obligation and that upon the Consciences of Men. Authority is no Authority unless it oblige and what is Authority to oblige to but Obedience And it must needs be a very strange sort of Authority which every one is free in Conscience to despise and no body is bound to obey So that leave any Man Authority and in the nature of things you leave a due Obedience to it also 2. From its being God's Authority It is a plain Case God's Authority must always have something Due that is Obedience due to it If
you could suppose no Obedience due to God's Authority you may suppose no Obedience due to God himself for all the Obedience due to him is upon the Account of his Authority And therefore leave any Person vested in God's Authority and there is no need of any Thing more for Obedience is immediately his Due 3. From the Commands requiring Obedience which fix it to the Authority Honour thy Father be Subject to the Higher Powers Obey Magistrates He that has the Father's Authority is without more ado the Father And he that has the Higher Powers or Prince's Authority is the Prince for it is the Regal Authority that makes him King or Prince And make him once the Father or the Prince as the Authority immediately doth and these Precepts ask no more for the Obedience they require Accordingly in all Authorities this Obedience is kept on payable and due whether they are under the Exercise of the Authority or no. What Exercise doth a Wife or Family receive of an Husband 's or Father's or Master's Authority when he is beyond the Seas which will put a stop to actual Government and Communication as much between them I suppose as between a Prince and his Subjects And yet all these though they cannot obey their Relatives in the Exercise of their Authority whilst there is or can be no Exercise of it are still bound to keep under their Obedience and act in what they can for their Authority and Interests and would shew themselves very Undutiful and Disobedient to them should they in their absence act any Thing directly against their Authority Persons or Interests especially should they go to disclaim and cast off their Authority over them or go to transfer and fix that Authority in another though thought by them a more deserving Person But as to these Precepts he says He is sure the only direction of Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government How is he sure of that One Scripture bids Honour the Father another Obey the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Authority or Higher Power and so in other Authorities And yet these Names of Father Higher Power Husband Master to whom they direct this Obedience speak only Authority not Exercise And Authority as I have shewn may reside and remain in them who for the present do not or cannot exercise it And I think he may be sure and according to Scripture too that the very Nature of Authority binds to Obedience and that God's Authority will challenge it without looking further to actual Exercise or to any Thing else And accordingly it has claimed a dutiful Regard to Persons in their worst Circumstances as to Saul when on Mount Gilboab fled from the Philistines and David when he left the Administration to save himself by Flight from Absalom as I observed above in case of the Amalakite's and Shimei's Carriage towards them Indeed all Authority is given to be Exercised and will be so if Men will suffer those that have it to exercise it and Obedience is due to that Exercise and to the Exercisers thereof And Obedience is called for in Scripture to such Exercise of Authority and to those that Exercise it particularly by St. Paul who design'd to make all Christians sensible not only in general of their Obligation to Authority but particularly to the then present Administration of Authority and to those who at that time Exercised it the Obeying of whom the Iudaizers question'd So that in Precepts about Authority 't is no wonder to find mention or reference to Exercise of Authority since all Authority is given to be Exercised and always is so when it will be allowed and is always to be Obeyed when 't is Exercised And the Publishers of these Precepts had not only a design to teach Obedience to future Authority but to those that then were and were actually Exercising it in the World But many times they bid them only to obey the Authority without any mention of Exercise and the Obedience to this Exercise is because 't is the Exercise of Authority So Authority is the Ground and Reason of the Obedience and then it will claim Obedience whether a Man has a free Liberty to Exercise it or is kept from it 4. From the Reason of the Dueness of Obedience to such Administration and Exercise Obedience is not due to it because it is Exercise of Government but because it is Exercise of Authority in him that Governs If he has no Authority though he may Exercise the Acts of Government yet he doth not exercise Authority for if a Man has not Authority he cannot Exercise it if a Man has not Authority he ought not to Exercise the Acts of Government but if he has got Possession of external Strength into his Hands he may Exercise the Acts of Government though for want of Authority to do it withal he ought not But in all those Acts being not possessed of Authority he must Act I think without Authority and cannot Exercise it before he have got it and when this Exercise of Government and Authority are thus separated What Obedience is due to it The Scriptures plainly bid us be Subject to Authority And all Conscience of Obedience must be in regard to God's Authority And Allegiance as the Author says is due only to God's Authority and therefore none can be due to him who has not that Authority as none is for that Reason as he observes to Thieves and Pyrates when they have got Power over any Persons So that let a Man assume the Place and Exercise the Acts of Government yet that claims no Obedience if he has no Authority to govern And whenever the Acts of Government are Obeyed 'ts because of his Authority that doth those Acts so that the Persons Authority is the true Ground of all Obedience And if it be only for the sake of Authority that any Thing else must be Obeyed it would be a Riddle indeed if there should be none due to Authority it self which would be to make that which gives all claim to Obedience to have no claim thereto 5. From the Obedience due to the Authority of Governours in unauthoritative Acts the Author I am sure will own that a King may retain his Authority even when he acts Illegally and that Subjects owe him Obedience even under such illegal Actings else there were no Passive Obedience due to King's breaking Laws But now to what Authority is this Obedience due to Authority in the Exercise or in these Acts of Government No in these actings against Law he doth not Exercise his Authority having no Commission to do thus or to tye up any Man's Conscience the effect of Authority to do what he Illegally injoyns him but acts without and against it To what Authority is it due then For all Obedience must be due to some Authority 'T is due to that Authority in his Person which he doth not Exercise by
Estate as well as the highest Authority and if you suppose the Right to this Estate to be in him doth not that make it his rightful Property Then to seek to hinder him of his Right to take it out of his hand or to keep it out of his hand would be very unrighteous To pray for it to wish or desire it would be a Breach of the Tenth Commandment an unjust and evil Covetousness To attempt it or any ways abet or act therein would be a Breach of the Eighth and pass among unjust Seisures And the Allegiance that tyes to pray for and to promote the Possession of K. W. Q. M. I think doth pretty evidently do all this against him 2. To be Dutiful and Obedient to him in point of Power Admit him to have the Legal Right and he will seem to be the Politick Father and still King and then by the Fâ—fâ—h Commandment Allegiance is unavoidably due to him Suppose him the Father there spoken of and that Commandment bids all to Reverence and keep Subjâ—ct to and Serve and Support him and transferring Allegiance runs directly contrary to all these Duties It is turning Subject to another against him not keeping Subject to him against all Men. There is an end of praying for him when they openly fast and pray against hâ—m They have done with supporting him when they fall to support another in his Throne They can be but one King's Subjects as having but one Allegiance which when they promise and pay to K. William and Q. Mary they must needs cast off to K. James And as the Supposal of his Legal Right makes them owe him as may seem all the Duty of the Fifth Commandment I think such transferring of Allegiance would manifestly be very bad Payment of it 3. To be true and faithful to their own Oaths and Promises The Third Commandment is Not to take God's Name in vain or as our Lâ—rd words it not to forswear our selves And that may be either in â—alsifying the former Oath by Non-performance or in falsiâ—ying again by swearing more than we can perform in the new Oath The former Oath to K. James was notwithstanding any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience to bear Faith and true Allâ—giance to His Majesty Now I suppose to transfer Allegiance from him doth not fulfil the Promise of continuing to hear Allegiance to him And to bear it to his Competitor is not to bear it to him for certainly he and his Competitor are not the same And to defend him and his Heirs to the uttermost of our Power against all Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity Now how Attempts have been made and how they are continued against his Person Crown and Dignity all Men must needs see And the calling for the present Allegiance is to back the Attempâ—ers therein And if you suppose his Legal Right to turn over to the Attempters will not verifie the Promise of Defending him and his Crown against all Attempts nor will aiding and praying for them when going against him be keeping his Crown on his Head to our utmost against them It is declared further That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever has Power to absolve us of this Oath nor of any part thereof And that notwithstanding any Absolution from this Obedience we will bear him this Faith and true Allegiance 'T is visible they that turn to bear it to another who is set upon his Throne bear it no longer to him They were bound thus fast to him therein before and some must have set them loose and by his Supposal that was not done by King James himself if as he puts the Case his Legal Right still remains And if they give this Faith and true Allegiance away to another when these Absolvers have loosed them how is that holding to bear it on to him notwithstanding any such Absolution Such Rubs lye in the way of transferring this Allegiance from the former Oath to King James And since in this new Oath true Allegiance is to be sworn again to K. William and Q Mary if they swear such Service and Support to them against K. James as 't is not lawful to perform as it seems visible they do if you suppose the former Bond is still remaining there would be a new Falsification To say and not to doe is to falsifie And to swear he will do what a Man ought not and will not do is to swear falsly And this every person doth that swears to do an unjust thing or to give away what is none of his own Such Oaths lay no Obligation nor procure Licence to perform the thing being as unjust after as it was before their Swearing No man must swear away any part of his Duty as the Author observes p. 32. because an Oath in which a Man so swears is false in the making assuring Men of what they are not like to find and deluding them by a Promise and Oath which must not be kept but broken As to the Persons concern'd in these Difficulties the Consciences of all the Subjects are concerned on some though not on all the forementioned Accounts The Eighth and Tenth Commandments of not being injurious to him in his rightful Properties would affect the Consciences of all Men in common Justice The Fifth Commandment of bearing Allegiance to him if true and legal King and paying him Honour and Obedience would bind the Consciences of all Subjects of these Dominions And the Third Commandment of not forswearing our selves but performing towards him our Oaths concerns only them that have been in Stations requiring the Oaths of Allegiance And to the foregoing Obligations which equally concern and are a fast Tye upon all others this superadds a new Bond or most solemn Obligation upon the Swearers themselves These in short I conceive are the great Difficulties against the new Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary whether called for upon Oath or without Outh Now of all these Difficulties I observe That they suppose a rightful Competitor in being to whom the Subjects are under a contrary Obligation The hindrance of Conscience is not from their own Rights which the Owners may give up if they please but from the Rights of a Third Person And the Refusal is only to do Right and to keep a clear Conscience towards him For as the Case is put it is K. James's supposed Right to these Realms as Proprietor that witholds them in regard to the Eighth and Tenth Commandments from that Allegiance which must joyn to drive or keep him out thereof and his supposed Right or Power and Authority over them that bars them in Conscience of the Fifth Commandment from casting off Obedience to him and turning Subjects to K. William and Q. Mary and the further Right he has to all this by their solemn Promises Oaths which keeps them fast to him in respect to the Third Commandment till
him in the interim of his Dispossession to need an Act of Oblivion Not to mention moreover how Richard the Second was not judged in Law to have lost his Authority whilst Henry the Fourth was possess'd of his Crown Whereof I think this is a very good Proof because the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. as it is in the Rolls says That Henry himself who was unjustly Possessed thereof ought Allegiance to him all that time As his most Sovereign Lord in Earth and acted against God's Law Man's Ligiance and Oath of Fidelity when at last he Murdered him Nor the several Attaindors that might be produced for acting against the Right Heirs seeking to get Possession These Attaindors suppose Authority for an Attaindor cannot ly against any but for acting against the Royal Authority And this Authority was whilst they had no Possession yea for acting for the unjust Possessor himself against them This I think may be sufficient to shew that the Authority of a King doth not lye in possession of External Strength but in such a Right of Ordering as lays an Internal Obligation which may stay by him when all his External Strength is gone and which they may want who have got all his External Strength from him And therefore this Reverend Person should not think it enough to prove one Prince out of Authority because he is out of Possession or another to be in his Authority because he has got into Possession To know who has and who wants the Authority we must look who has or who wants that which carries and and conveys Authority which is not having of External Strength but having Right thereto as I shall endeavour to shew by and by II. Secondly It may be fit to inquire Whence have they this Authority Now that is from God as he observes Who is the Supream Lord of the World and the Fountain of all Authority he is Lord of our Spirits as well as of our Bodies and his Authority can bind us in Conscience as well as in External Interests and this Authority in them coming from him can do so too and therefore St. Paul speaking of the Obligation laid upon us by Civil Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Higher Powers says It calls for our being subject thereunto not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1 5. To force the Body may be in the Power of Men but to reach the Conscience is not to be done but by the Authority of God But if this be God's Authority it is next to be inquired III. Thirdly How come they by it or where has he conferred on them this Authority This I think is in the Commandment The Fifth Commandment empowers all Authority and so do those other Precepts that require us to be subject to the Higher Powers to Honour the King to Obey Magistrates and the like That I think empowers him to Command which requires us to Obey and is a Charter both of his Authority and of our Duty since this Duty is only due to Authority I know no other way whereby God speaks either to Governours or Subjects but by the Commandment which empowers one and obliges the other and on this Foot St. Paul seems to put the Guilt of all that is done against Authority He that resisteth the Power or Authority resisteth the Ordinance of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. says the Aethop and Syr. The Divine Mandate or the Constitution and Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Names as Grotius notes which the Emperors were wont to give to their Imperial Constitution so implying them to be Empower'd or Authoriz'd by the Commandment and making resistance of Authority to be a resistance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Commandment which carries and conveys the Authority Rom. 13. 2. This annexing of Authority by the Commandment is immediately to the State or Dignity and only by means of that to the Person The Authority the Commandment places in the Father and the Subjection it requires to the Higher Power the Obedience to the Magistrate and the like in all other Authorities and this is all that Laws can do for Laws are general Sayings and general Sayings can only authorize States in general but must leave it to Men to make the particular Applications The State and Relation then of a Prince or Parent c. is what God and the Command immediately authorizes But this State authorized by a general Commandment is a general Thing And it will be asked further How comes this to be such a Man's Authority or to be fixed in such a Person Now that is by the same way that he comes into the State or Relation and that is not by any immediate Act of God but by an Act of Men. 'T is the Law of the Land for instance that makes any particular Man a King and that Law is not the Act of God but the Act of Men and so in every other State and Relation The comming into these States God and his Laws have left to human Ways and these Ways are very well known none need be Ignorant of the way of coming in to be a Father a Magistrate a Master an Husband c. Which State when once by such Ways they see any Person in the Command of God takes Place giving him Authority and calling for Duty from the Subjects towards him This the Learned Authour seems to think is not enough But as the Power or Authority is annexed to the State so must the Person be called to that State and Power by God himself And therefore he says this empowering or authorizing of the parcular Person is by Providence which is God's doing and which he thinks a good Grant of God to an Usurping Possessor who according to him is a good providential King 1. But First As for such Grant of God to a Person if he means as I suppose he doth a more immediate way of Granting than that by human Rights I know no way of doing that but by particular Revelation or God's immediate Nomination If God please to name the Person he gives the Authority particularly to that Person and not only by the general Grant of giving it to him whosoever should come into such Relation or State of a Parent suppose or King And thus in the First Marriage God fixed the Person viz. Eve who should be Wife to Adam And sometimes among the Jews named the Man as Saul and David who should have the Royal Authority and be their King But these are Rarities and out of the ordinary and constant Course of God's empowering either Kings or Husbands and yet all that come into these States otherwise are as much empowered by God as these so his way of empowering the Person must not be tyed to Revelation and particular Nomination And how God can immediately fix the Person otherwise than by himself immediately naming him which is
were Held and Practised so in all Ancient time this would lead us and doth lead the Disputants of all Parties into another kind of Historical Search than this which he speaks of into our Laws and Chronicles And yet for all such a Question about the Reception of them in times past would draw on such an Historical Search the Author very well knows That all these Duties are bound by God on all Men's Consciences And now by all that has been said on this point I think it may sufficiently appear That if God doth not fix it in a Person by special Revelation Civil Authority must go by human Right Right is inseparable from it in the Nature of Things in the Gift of God in the Supposal and Intention of the Commandments that carry it and call for Obedience to it So that he who has no good Right to it has no Authority but he who has the Right to it has the Authority which the Commands of God require us to bear Allegiance and keep subject to And all this is agreeable to that Scripture and Common Reason which tells us That no man can put himself into Authotity No man takes this Honour to himself but must be called to it says St. Paul Heb. 5. 4 5. speaking of the Pastoral or Priestly Authority which is God's Authority as the Civil is And Civil Magistrates when Obedience is called for to them are likewise styled God's Ministers Rom 13. 4. all the Authority they have over others being as his Deputies and Vicegerents Authority then no man can have but by being rightfully Deputed and Called to it or having it duly committed to him By what Authority dest thou these things and who gave thee this Authority is a Question most natural to be put to every such Person and must be answered by shewing some good Call and Commission Now this calling a Man to Authority and Deputation of God must be by some Title of Right or rightful Way not by thrusting himself into it which is setting up uncall'd and if a man puts himself upon it without being call'd thereto and assumes it without any Title of Right he only puts himself in Commission which is no Commission And as his Commission is from himself his Authority is so too So such a Man will only be a King of his own making but there is no Authority of God derived to him nor Call of his to carry it or authorize him And therefore what he doth require must be in regard to himself and not to God who having never Commissioned or rightfully called him calls not the People to obey him The like I might also add of our own Laws which make the Regal Authority to go with the Legal Right and vest it in the Person that has the Right and that when another has dispossessed him and got the Possession from him Thus Q. Mary having the Right the Statute declares the Regal Authority to have been vested in her Person during all the Possession of Q. Iane. And in Richard II. during the Possession of Henry IV. And in the right Heir by Henry VIII Settlement during the Possession of the Usurper Under all which he that had the Right in the Eye of Law had the Authority And such Acts against Authority as the Law calls Treason were declared to be Treason against them As it was also in K. Charles I. who keeping his Legal Right kept his Authority when he stood dispossessed of all besides before the High Court of Iustice As K. Charles II. also did afterwards all the time he was driven out and lived an Exile as I formerly observed Chap. 2. But the Author thinks p. 14 15. 65. He that is in Possession of the Crown tho' without Legal Right is King in the Eye of Law and he that is turned out of Possession though he has Legal Right is not King in the Eye of Law He ought as he words it by the Laws of the Land to be King but is not As for the Possessor without Right I will tell him what kind of King in my Opinion the Law counts him If he were a Subject before it looks upon him in the height of his usurped Possession to be still a Subject to him that has the Right and is dispossessed of it and as a Subject to owe Faith and Allegiance to him To break that Faith in acting against him to be tryable by Law and attaintable as a Traitor and punishable for the same All which is plain from the Instances of Henry IV. of the usurping Heirs of Henry VIII and of Queen Iane. And in the several Mutual Attainders during the Contests betwixt the two Houses in which though every King served himself of Law on pretence of having Right in his own Reign yet when on any Turn the Law came to look upon him as wanting Right and only as an Usurper or King in Fact it still treated and tryed and attainted him as a Subject Here then if such an one be a King in the Eye of Law is he a Subject Traiterous Tryable Punishable King And whether this in the Eye of Law is the true Sovereign or the supream and unaccountable King I leave him to judge And as for him that has Right who as he fancies in the Eye of Law is no King he is such a No-King as in the Eye of Law has the Regal Authority as I have shown still vested in him as has Allegiance by Law due to him and Treason by Law committable against him As is plain from Q Mary K. Charles the First and Second and all the forecited Instances and will be further from what I shall note from Law of the Dueness of Allegiance to a dispossessed Prince And how such an one whom the Law vests with the Authority of a King and to whom it gives the Allegiance due to a King and against whom it makes Treason as against a King should yet for all this in the Eye of Law be no King I cannot imagine Though therefore I cannot say That Allegiance is due only to Right as the Author words it p. 1. which I think not so well expressed yet is it only due to him that has the Right Allegiance is due to Authority and in absence of Revelation by the Laws both of God and Men Authority must go by human Right So that he only that has human Right to the Authority is to have the Authority and by vertue of that the Allegiance too And therefore the Question of Legal Right must come into this Dispute of transferring Allegiance I conceive since it must not be paid from him that has or paid against him to another that has not Right and there is no way left to justifie such Translation of Allegiance without it And if what I have offered hereupon has proved this point I think it strikes home at the main Design of this Learned Person 's Book And this will show him why when a rightful Prince is
King Charles II. was dispossessed hâ— was faithfully adhered to and served by several of his Subjects who for this were punished by the long Parliament aâ— Delinquents And this Adherence and Service the Statute 13 14 Car. II. c. 25. declares was according to their Duty and Allegiance The Rule given about Allegiance by the Judges in the Case of Union in Sir Francis Moor's Reports p. 798. is That if a King is expulsed by Force and another usurp nevertheless the Allegiance is not taken away though the Law be taken away This seems also the plain meaning of Allegiance following the King 's Natural Person as is declared both in the Case of Union and in Calvin's Case which would be tyed to the Politick and go with Possession if it inseparably depended on actual Administration All which to mention no more is the plain Signification of all the forementioned Attaindors passed upon Men either in Statutes or in Courts of Justice for acting against a dispossessed rightful King For Treason is the highest Breach of Allegiance and if the Law judges Men guilty of Treason against such a King it certainly judges them to owe Allegiance to him And this is still the Sense and Understanding of Publick Acts so many of the Acts passed since this Revolution having declar'd the Irish then under K. James's Possession and actual Government or Administration for all that to owe their Obedience to and for Breach thereof to be Rebels against King William And all this shows That by our Laws as well as by the Laws of God and Reason Obedience or Allegiance is due to the Rightful Authority of a King out of Possession and so is far from being tyed by our Law more than it is by the Scripture and the Nature of things to actual Administration But against this p. â—3 he objects the Opinion of some great Lawyers for Allegiance being due by Law to a King de Facto The Lawyers mentioned by him are the Lord Chief Justice Coke who is followed in this point by the Lord Chief Justice Hale and the Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman and the Allegations of Law which my Lord Coke builds his Opinion on are some Sayings in Baggot's Case not the fullest to his Purpose But what I chiefly observe is not of the Judges but only Allegations of the Council as they who please may see in the Case it self An. 9 Ed. 4. Term. Pas. Fol. 1. 2. 5. and the Statute of 11 H. 7. c. 1. which declares Subjects bound by their Allegiance to serve their Sovereign for the time being in his Wars against every Might and Power reared against him and indemnifies them for the same But how is this a Proof of Allegiance to a King de Facto Doth the Statute say they are bound to do this to the King de Facto No it only says to the King for the time being Do the Words for the time being then signifie the same as De Facto in their ordinary and legal Signification No they are ordinarily used both in Law and common Speech to seâ— off those that have Right as the Statutes when there is no Dispute of the Right of the King or of those that act under him every where mention the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer Lord High Admiral or other great Officers for the time being And the Statute 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. speaking of King Edward and his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm unquestionably rightful Kings calls them several times Kings for the time being If the Signification of the Phrase will not do it doth not the thing there said of this Service to the King for the time being viz. that it is against all Laws Reason and good Conscience to lose or forfeit any thing for the same determine it to the King in Fact No but on the contrary if they are true they will determine that King in being I conceive to be the Rightful King For suppose another to have the Right and it must needs be very unrighteous to hinder him of it and then he acts unrighteously that serves the King in Fact against the King in Right And what is unrighteous is against Reason and good Conscience and 't is neither against Reason nor good Conscience That Men should suffer for unreasonable and unrighteous actings For if Reason and good Conscience would have them suffer for any thing it must be for these Yea and 't is as much against Laws as against either Reason or Conscience there having been Laws enough as I have noted in several Instances for punishing and attainting Subjects that acted against their Rightful though dispossessed Sovereigns and of these Laws several in King Henry's own Remembrance some made against him by another who thought he had the Right and some made against them by himself when he came to assert his own Right And the Allegiance this Statute speaks of is the Allegiance as it had stood in his Remembrance as the Preface of it notes and as the Author himself also p. 62. 63. observes from it In all which time and before neither Law Reason nor good Conscience indemnified paying this to wrong but only to rightful Kings But mutual Attainders of each others Adherents he says p. 59. is no Proof what the Law of the Land is What not if the Law attaints Must not Laws shew what the Law is And if as oft as the Law looks upon a Man to have had only Possession it attaints those that served him it is plain That Law did not look upon mere Possession without Right to justifie that Service If Possession in Law would have justified them in serving him for such Service the Law would not have condemned them And as for that Favour of Parliaments towards the Possessor which is all as he says ibid. that such Parliamentary Attainders shew that Favour to the Possessor is favouring his Right for opposing whereof the other side may be attainted But it would not go to attaint innocent Men for following Possession if it owned Allegiance were due to mere Possession For that were to do a Contradiction But whatever had been done in this kind before Henry VII he says p. 63. was now convinced it was ill done and provides by this Statute it shall be so no more But the Statute doth not speak of this as of a new Provision but as of the Allegiance which the King called to his Remembrance and which had all this Guard of Law Reason and good Conscience aforetime Declaring therein as the Author remarks upon it p. 63. what was so before and not made so now merely by their Declaration and so I think was not thus to guard those that served against the Right For as there was Reason and Conscience so likewise Law enough if Statutes and judged Cases are Laws both in time foregoing and time following to punish them I add to this if this Service as beiâ—g a Service of the Wrong against the Right is thus against
Reason and good Conscience though there had been no Express Law against it but an Express Law for it yet would it have vacated that Law for can any human Law bind against good Conscience or authorize and bear Men out in unrighteous Actions And tâ—us this Statute would do if still owning another to have the Right it should authorize the Subjects to serve in War and assist the Possessor against him coming to get his Right But p. 65. doth not Law limit Right And may not a King limit his Right by his own Consent Yes and transfer it too if he will But if the Law has still left him the Right and he has not Consented in this Laâ— to part with his Right when dispossessed Which is the reality of the Case as p. 37. the learned Author whom he considered on this Point shewed and as it is supposed to be in this present Dispute which is for trying to give away Allegiance admitting him still to have the legal Right What then is to be said to a Statute authorizing Subjects to oppose him in seeking of his Right If the King himself as he supposes him to do in the Statute on good Considerations consents to this What Iniquity p. 65. says he is there in this Law Yes as it leaves such Dispossessed Prince still to have Right and bids Men oppose him in it there is Iniquity therein as there would be in any Law that should bid Men steal their Neighbour's Goods or slay the Innocent There is Iniquity in all Unrighteousness and this Law would this way bid Men oppose Right which is to be Unrighteous So that here God's Law says you shall not oppose any Man in seeking of his Right and this Law would say you shall do it And when any human Law bids us do that I think since God is above Men it must needs be enough as is shewed in the Doctor and Student to vacate that Law to say that God forbids it But if this Statute is meant only of the right King What need of Indemnifying None whilst the right is in Possession But that was made to cover them as far as he could against a turn of Times which it would be the more like to do especially in such Doubted and Controverted Titles because on all Sides in this Quarrel of the Two Houses they had Cause enough to be weary of the way of Mutual Attaindors Thus much I thought fit to say here upon this Statute which since this Plea has been started other Papers have more largely considered And though the Author whom he replies to in this Part of his Book had no need I think to suppose the King for the time being in that Statute to be a mere King in Fact Yet any one that will peruse what with great Labour and Skill he has laid together in that Book will see enough to shew him how far the Law is from carrying Allegiance to a mere King in Fact Now these Sayings of Council in Baggot's Case and the Statute of H. 7. being my Lord Coke's Grounds for taking Allegiance to be due to a King in Fact the effect of what he alledges from the Three Lord Chief Justices and Baggot's Case to prove this Point I think when duly weighed will only amount to this That my Lord Coke followed therein by Two eminent Lawyers upon the Authority of a Saying of Council and of some Words in a Statute about Allegiance not expresly mentioning a King in Fact but according to their common use in Law signifying one that has Right and not admitting what the Statute affirms of them to be true if meant of any other but the Right were of Opinion that Allegiance is due to a King in Fact Though for further abatement of these Authorities my Lord Coke says enough I think particularly in Calvin's Case to declare Allegiance inseperable from the Right whether Possessed or no. And I think my Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman who Sentenced Men for Treason against the Right after he was Dâ—spossessed and my Lord Chief Justice Hale who refused to sit on any under the late Usurpation that were to be tryed for their Adherence to the Dispossessed rightful King were plainly of the same Opinion And if 't is due to the Right when Dispossessed in their Opinion it is not as the Author thinks duâ— only to actual Government And if it is due to the Right out of Possession since as he says also we cannot have Two Kings or Two Allegiances there can be none due to the Wrong So this Opinion of these great Men seems not to have been their fix'd and settled Opinion for which a Saying of Council or such sound of some Words in a Statute as I have mentioned seems not to be the best Foundation But on the other side That Allegiance is all the time due by Law to the Right even when Dispossessed and broke by those that act against him in Adherence to the King in Fact yea by the King in Fact himself if he were a Subject before appears from Numerous both Acts of Parliament and judged Cases such as Calvin's Case and the Case of Union which make Allegiance to follâ—â— the King 's Natural Person and from the Iudgment on the Duke of Northumberland who gave this Plea of a King in Fact and for the Purposes it is now urged from the Statute of H. 7. for his Acting under Queen Iane against Queen Mary but was told by the Court That the Seal of an Usurping Queen was no good Warrant and the Judgment was afterwards confirmed by Act of Parliament From the Iudgement on the Râ—gicides for what they acted against King Charles 1. in his State of Dispossession and the need of an Act of Oblivion for what was done against his Son whilst-kept out of the Administration From the Statute of 13 14 Car 2. before mentioned declaring Allegiance all that while due to him as another declared it due to Queen Mary and the Regal Authority to be vested in her Person during the time of Queen Iane's Usurpation And as other Statutes declared it to be due to Henry the Eighâ—h's right Heirs whilst others Usurped upon them And another Statute did to Richard the Second during Henry the Fourth's Usurping his Throne And as is declared in all the Statutes of Attaindor upon the Kings in Fact and their Adherents when the Kings in Right recovered their Thrones as has been observed in the Chap. 2. foregoing Discourse And as is declared lastly in the legal Oath of Allegiance which Recognizes the King 's Right and Swears to bear and pay Allegiance to the Right whilst he has Right to defend and pay it to And suppose the Statute of H. 7. had authorized Men to pay it to the Wrong and these Statutes of King James the First abâ—â—t the Oath of Allegiance make them Swear to pay it to the Right Which would be the Law in this Case If Two Statutes clash and
it will appear on these accounts following 1. First This would destroy all Obligation by Right and Wrong among Kings The Obligations of Right are First in getting to tye men up from taking what is anothers Right and is the Justice of not violently seizing Or Secondly in holding to tye men up from keeping what is another's and is the Justice of not violently detaining but making Restitution Now both these Obligations this Principle of mere Providential Possession without other Title giving Right destroys 1. First as to the Obligation of not holding or Detaining another's Right but making Restitution When one has taken another's Crown it undeniably sets that aside For if a Man may with a good Conscience keep it what Obligation has he to restore it And if in the sight of God he has now the best Right to it why may he not conscionably keep it For God will not be angry with any Man for holding his Right or keeping what is his own or for not restoring to the loser what now is no longer his which then would be altered in Nature and be Gift not Restitution And whatever Men may think of his Right to what in their Reckoning was so unrighteously got yet this Right he has and as good as the best Right as the Author tells us p. 14. Prop. 4. all Possessors of Thrones beâ—ng equally Rightful with respect to God So that he may hold it very righteously and with a clear Conscience as any other Persons may their most rightful Properties But now this is 1. Against Restitution of other Mens Rights and the Obligation of Kings thereto in common with all other Christians Thou shalt not steal is God's Command about other mens Rights and Properties And the inseparable Consequent thereof is That when any one has violently taken them he shall restore them The Justice thereby required is to give every Man his own and where it was unrighteously taken away before to give it is the same as to give it back or righteously to restore it So when a thing is taken by Wrong if Right doth not bind to give it to the right Owner again it doth not bind to give every Man his own that is it binds to nothing Now this Restitution is of what a Man has got by Providential Possession The other must have lost Possession before he needs to have it restored to him And he must have possessed himself of it before he can restore it And therefore if Right binds the unjust Taker to Restitution it must bind against Providential Possession and the mere Possessor without other Title gets no Right by taking if he is bound to restore to the rightful Owner what he has taken from him Again these Precedent Rights which the Commandment calls for this Reâ—litution of by those that have taken them and are the Providential Possessors are human and legal Rights and Properties For God made no Civil Properties either to Thrones or private Estates any where but among the Jews All the World besides hold these Properties by human and legal Rights And these Rights the Command of not Stealing or of giving and restoring Right enjoyns the Providential Possessors whether Kings or others to restore to the right Owners For it is a Command not only for the Jews but for all Persons and Places and so for guarding and restoring the Rights of all Places i. e. Human Rights against all that take them away that is Providential Possessors So mere Success in taking another Man 's human Right or Providential Possession without other Title gives the Possessor no Right to it and least of all a better Right to it than the dispossessed Owner in the account of the Commandment since the Command says it is still the others Right and bids him that has got it unrighteously into his Possession to restore it And this Restitution of others human Rights which a Man by mere Providential Success without other Title has got into his own Possession is a Law to Kings in common with all other Christians For Kings though they are our Governours are God's Subjects and Servants and bound equally as we are to his Laws If they are saved it must not be as Kings but as Christians and that is by keeping the Commandments as they promised in their Baptism and this of not Stealing but restoring what should be unjustly taken among others and this in any Rights or Properties they take from one another The Command is to do this to thy Neighbour and one King is certainly Neighbour to another And the Greatness of the thing they have taken when they unrighteously invade a Crown or Kingdom will never be thought to lessen the Obligation to Restitution For no Man will say they are bound to be just in a little thing but not in a great one and that if a Man steals twenty Shillings he is bound to restore it but not if he steals a thousand Pounds 2. 'T is against the Scripture Declarations about Kings who had so unjustly possessed themselves of others Kingdoms Who so guilty of this as the Assyrian and Babylonian Kings Iâ—r 25. who were the great Robbers of Crowned Heads and Spoylers of Nations recorded in Scripture This they succeeded in to admiration as the Scourge of God and got them into their Possession which is the Right of Providence But what thought the Spirit of God of these Possessors of other Kings Crowns and Subjects Lands and Properties It calls them the Wicked the evil Doers the Oppressors the Spoylers the Lyons All their unjust Gettings and Devouring of Nations it calls an evil Covetoâ—sness and establishing their City by Iniquity and Violence and filling their Holes with Prey and Ravine And for all these their Oppressions Hab. 2. 8. for Mens Blood and for Violence and Direption of the Land or of Lands and Countries as Grotius and for the Iniquity of their Fathers Isa. 14. Jer. 51. it denounces to the Babylonians the most extreme Plagues yea the Judgment of a just Retaliation That they should be punished Jer. 25. 12. 14. c. 51. 56. by recompencing and requiting them in their own way and according to their own Deeds God making other Nations to serve themselves of them as they before had served themselves of others Now if Success and Possession was God's Grant and gave them the best Right to them why is building up their Empire thereby and having and holding such an heap of Nations and new Possessions termed evil and insatiable Covetousness Iniquity Violence and Ravine And why all this Vengeance for the same Sure not for holding what God by a just Right had this way made their own This heaping up of ill got Nations and unjust Possessions is charged also as increasing what is not his and great and sudden Woes Denounced thereto And what sort of Right then is it That such Possession gives when the thing Possessed is none of his and heavy Woes light
these Rules of Justice which are to limit all Pursuits thereof The great Prelate he disputes against on this point p 38. c is for binding all Subjects even those that adhere to the ejected Prince to seek the Benefit of Society And in order thereto to pay much Regard and to submit to the Usurper in the great Points thereof As to be obedient to him in Defence of the Country against Foreigners in his Administration of Justice and Preservation of Trade and Commerce and Observance of Laws Limiting them only herein by their Obligations to the Rightful King that they do not obey the Usurper in any thing against him or in violation of that Faith which they owe to him And to this he thinks they are bound in prudent Care of themselves in grateful return for Protection in conscionable Care of the Publick Benefit though they are not bound by the Authority of the Person as the Learned Grotius also taught in this Case de Iur. B. l. 1. c. 4. Art 15. Now what is there destroyed in Society yea or lost of the Benefits thereof which can Righteously be kept in this supposed Defective Unnatural and Forced State of Society His main Objection to it is p. 39. that there is a want of Authority And Authority and Obedience is Essential to Civil Government and Civil Society And want of a Perfect and Natural Course there is of both these as there is like to be in such an Unnatural State but no absolute want thereof There is no absolute want either of Authority or of Allegiance For the rightful King has Authority and the Subjects owe him Allegiance and betwixt these as the Head and Body is the Being of the Society But what is to be said then to Administration of Government should there not be Authority also in that Yes and always is when Government goes on in a Natural Course and would be in the Case supposed if he that has the Authority could be allowed to exercise his Authority and to govern by it But he supposes he is not allowed to that And the other who is possessed of External Strength but without Authority will administer the Government and usurp the exercise of all Acts thereof though he has no Authority for it So there will be Authority in this Society though he that has it is not allowed to exercise and govern by it And there will be Administration and Exercise of all Acts of Government though he that usurps this Administration has no Authority for it The want is neither of Authority nor of Administration in the Society but of an Union of these two so as that he who administers might do it with Authority This I grant is maimed and unnatural But the supposed State is maimed and unnatural And in an unnatural and lame State when the authorized King and People are kept apart like as when the Head and Members are in other Societies there must be an unnatural and lame Course of Government Now when one that has not the Authority which goes not by Strength but Right yet having got external Power in his hands will Administer the Government if the Subjects will all submit to him therein the Society will competently enjoy the Benefits of Administration The natural and best ground of Subjects Obedience is Authority indeed but that cannot do here in an unnatural State and in a Case that supposes he will Administer who has Possession against Right and so wants Authority for it But this Obedience the Bishop fetches from other Grounds and those of Conscience too as well as of Prudence and carries it as far as it righteously can be carried that is in all things that are not prejudicial to the true Owners Rights or to their Fidelity and Obligations to him And farther than this none must go in seeking any Benefits of Society they being always under the Restraint of this Limitation as I observed and never to be sought unrighteously The Bishop Sect. 21. fetches a Liberty for the Subjects to obey the Usurper in the forsaid Instances from the Rightful King 's presumed Consent And great Reason there is to presume he will consent to what is done to keep up Government and not to keep himself out For a People he would have kept together and some Order kept up among them and 't is to an United People that he claims a Right and hopes to be restored again And this presumed Consent some as the learned Author whom he mentions carry farther to derive Authority in these Acts to the Usurper and those that act under him from the Lawful King And whether this presumed Consent can give him or them Authority to do them or no 't is certainly very equitable that his Acts for keeping up common Order and Justice no ways prejudicial to the lawful King should stand good when they are done and be made authoritative when they can And so accordingly they use to be made by the Rightful King's Ratification at his Return As they were by Edward IV. by Q. Mary and K. Charles II. on their several Restorations to the Throne But this presumed Consent he thinks is not enough to derive Authority to the Usurper And not to dispute that Point whether it be or no doth he know of any better way If not all I can say is That no body is bound in my Opinion to find two Regal Authorities more than two Kings which he thinks an Absurdity for one Society p. 14. Nor to find Authority in him that has no Right to it since Authority can go by nothing else but Right And if a Man has it not of his own nor can borrow it I see no Remedy but he must want it However having external Strength he will administer all the same Acts of Government as he would do if he had Authority to do them And if all People submit in regard to private Interests and publick Peace where there is no Authority to have Regard to his Administration will not want good Effect of keeping up Order and Peace and Common Justice among them Indeed they that act in place of Authority under such as they suppose to have no legal Right are concerned to look more to the Authority they act by But as for others they will have Benefit by the Administration whether it be with Authority or no. One Objection he makes p. 40. viz. of the usurping Possessor that has Power enough in his hand to do it either destroying imprisoning or transplanting all that stand out And would not an obstinate Allegiance destroy Society in this Case He supposes all Subjects to do their Duty and stand out Which though all are equally bound to do in Right yet they are never like to do so in Fact the Course of this World giving little appearance of a whole Nation being unanimous in quitting all Temporal Interests for a good Conscience But suppose they should and the Usurper being too strong for them requires them all
as every one is bound to in his Station whilst a Prince is among them How will his way exempt them from paying the same when they have an obliging Opportunity whilst he is Dispossessed of his Throne This I think K. W. claim'd from the Irish Subjects requiring them to come in to him and to return to their due Obedience whilst his Errand was Restoring or getting Possession And this in virtue of their Natural Allegiance they having taken no Legal Oath to him And more particularly as to the Legal Oath the Maintenance and Defence Swore in that is with respect to the Legal Right as is plain in the Oath and as he himself observes p. 28. And here methinks it should be harder to get off from Maintaining and Defending if the legal Right be allowed to remain which they Swore to maintain and defend him in And the Maintenance Promised was against all Attempts whatsoever against his Person Crown and Dignity Now the Crown and Dignity is his who has the best Right to them Right making Property as I formerly observed So leaving the Legal Right to any Dispossessed Kings Person will leave him the Crown and Dignity And then all continuance of Attempts to deprive his Person of the Crown and Dignity will be Attempts against his Person Crown and Dignity I think And how will this making Attempts thereupon be Maintaining and Defending both his Dignity and him against them So no way will remain but the translation of Legal Right to take off this Maintenance and Defence in my Opinion He thinks also p. 30. That we are not bound to defend a King when he illegally Subverts the Laws or Legal Religion of a Kingdom 'T is enough in Conscience he fancies p. 27. pattently to bear such an one but a little too much for Subjects to venture all to keep him on the Throne to oppress them This I think makes Kings illegal Actings a Discharge of Subject's Allegiance and Legal Defence which agrees equally ill in my Opinion with the Oath of Allegiance and with Passive Obedience For that is to be so Passive as to make no Resistance and to be so Obedient as to pay all due Service and Allegiance even to such illegal Invaders of Religion and Laws Nor is this Duty taken off by the abuse they will make of the Subject's Performance in turning that Power upon them afterwards to persecute and oppress those who were its Dutyful Supporters for no Duty is taken off by the accidental abuse which others may make of our payment of it nor was this in particular thought to be taken off by the Primitive Christians They were not without plain appearances that if a Persecutor kept the Throne he would turn or continue his Power to persecute and oppress them But yet for all this they durst never be wanting in any Part or Duty of good Subjects in their several Stations to keep him thereon either against any Domestick Rebellion or Foreign Invasion The Subject's Duty in these Cases I think is as to the illegal ways never to act under him or serve him in the illegal Thing But yet for all that to be ready in their several Stations to defend his Person and the Cause of his Crown when either Subject or Foreigner shall rise against him And 't is their Acting in the illegal Thing that the Law punishes but no Law will punish them for Acting to support his Person and defend his Crown Though a Man may be a Traytor as he urges p. 30. For Acting for him against Law yet never for Defending him when Assaulted for that is according to Law So though they are not to defend such illegal Opposer in an illegal Thing yet are they bound to give him the due Defence of Allegiance and the Legal Oath notwithstanding it And thus I have considered both the Scriptures and Reasons he has offered for this Right of Providence And as the former Proofs I think shew Reason enough to overthrow it so he has brought no good Reason to support it And therefore mere Providential Possession of another's Crown without other Title is no Right much less such as should set aside the Legal Right So that the Legal Right will stand good notwithstanding it And if he that has the Legal Right has the best Right to the Crown though another be got into Possession The Supposal of a Legal Right in another will leave all the first mentioned Difficulties in Force against transferring Allegiance to the Possessor For in ingaging by such Allegiance to help him in keeping out the right Owner Subjects would be very Unrighteous and ingaging also thereby to resist the Authority of their rightful Prince they would be very Undutiful and Rebellious and therein moreover to break their former Promises and Oaths they would be very Perfidious and Perjurious All which I think are not to be taken off by the Supposal of Legal Right in the ejected Prince but only by proving he has parted from it and that the Possessor is vested with it which uses to be the Principle of the publick Acts on such Revolutions and particularly is so in our present Case and which as the Author has not at all medled with so neither shall I. And thus Honoured Sir I have considered what this Reverend and Learned Person has offered on this Argument Wherein I have endeavoured to take the Freedom which is fitting with his Opinion but to shew the Respect which I have and his many Excellent both Pious and Learned Labours have so long given the Serious and Wise part of Men cause to have for his Person I pray God to enlighten and thereby to awaken the Consciences of all concerned in this Question Some may be apt to take Offence at a free Discussion of these Grounds thinking it may touch too near on Reputation But as many as prefer Religion before themselves will be more careful to keep its Duties in Credit than to keep up their own Credit And I am sure all that have a serious Sense of Christianity and reverence for the Commandments of God must needs see that they have a much higher Concern than Reputation in this Dispute The Difficulties are of highest Importance in that Account we must all one Day make before the great Iudge of the World And if the Grounds several Men satisfie themselves upon at present will not take them off it nearly concerns them to see it in time whilst there may be ways of providing a more comfortable Answer against they come to be posed upon them God in his abundant Mercy grant us all the Grace to have and keep Minds raised above this World and both to see the Truth and follow it I remain Sir Your most Faithful and Affectionate Servant c. FINIS THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. OF the Difficulties in the way of the Present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off The Allegiance required Difficulties against it from several Commandments All suppose a rightful Competitor to